McQueen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The test on this question which this court has stated on several occasions is whether counsel’s actions, or lack thereof, have made the trial a farce or mockery of justice. Garton v. State, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 522, 530 ; Holbert v. State, Mo., 439 S.W.2d 507, 509 ; Holt v. State, Mo., 433 S.W.2d 265, 267 . This is the test which many federal courts, including the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, have adopted. Cardarella v. United States, 8 Cir., 375 F.2d 222, 230 , cert. den. 389 U.S. 882 , 88 S.Ct. 129 , 19 L.Ed.2d 176 ; Kress v. United States, 8 Cir., 411 F.2d 16, 22 ; Borchert v. United States, 9 Cir., 405 F.2d 735, 738 , cert. den. 394 U.S. 972 , 89 S.Ct. 1466 , 22 L.Ed.2d 753 ; Johnson v. United States, 10 Cir., 380 F.2d 810, 812 ; cases cited in 17 Mod.Fed. Prac.Dig., Crim.Law,. “Stated in this language, the rule perhaps sounds unduly restrictive or harsh by reason of the choice of descriptive terminology. However, I believe that examination of the cases indicates that in most instances the courts, after stating such a test, have sought actually to ascertain whether there has been such failure on the part of the attorney that defendant has not had a fair trial. If he has not had such a trial, the courts, even though using the farce and mockery terminology, have granted a new trial. Where, however, the court has concluded that under the evidence before it the defendant had a fair trial, then he has not been granted another trial on the basis of lack of effective assist”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. State

2. ““ . . . [W] e are seeking to determine whether, on the basis of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in the preparation and trial of this case (particularly in failure to investigate adequately), the appellant should be granted a new trial. Whether it was prejudicial to him depends on whether there was other evidence which was important and which a proper investigation would have uncovered. In such a situation ... it is proper to require that movant assume and sustain the burden of demonstrating that on retrial there will be evidence which is substantial and which was not available at the previous trial because of failure of his counsel to properly investigate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curry v. State

3. ““* * * ⅛ any event, the circumstance lends emphasis to the conclusion that during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against these defendants, that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thoroughgoing investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendants did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense, although they were as much entitled to such aid during that period as at the trial itself. * * *” (Emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. State